Copywrite hypothetical

[Matt Laur]

<i>I do not agree on having a commercial company mangled up with our educational system</i>

<Br><br>

I'm curious, Martijn... are there any privately owned (and thus, commercial) schools in the Netherlands? Many matters related to policies, entitlements, etc., that surround schools in the U.S. are driven by whether a given school accepts funding from state or federal sources. That can extend right down to individual projects and grants that impact only some students/staff. A lot of US schools actively seek out arrangements with private parties so that they can engage in basic research they otherwise wouldn't have the chance to be a part of. Obviously there are always strings attached. For the students, though, it's a chance to be exposed to well-funded, well-equipped projects they otherwise would never see. As the saying goes, though... there is no free lunch.

[Matt Laur]

<i>Babel Fish can bite you in the butt if you aren't careful</i>

<br><br>

That is very, very true. It may be most amusing as a source of entertainment. Translate something from English into, say, Dutch... and then back again. One quickly sees how solidly you can get your foot in your own mouth if you get past the most simplistic sentences. I use it mostly just to translate something I'm trying to read, so that I can get at least a basic sense of what's being said. I would avoid it at all costs if you're in socially (to say nothing of legally!) delicate territory.

[martijn_houtman]

<p>

Matt Laur, yes, there are several privately owned schools in the Netherlands, most of which are considered to be of high

quality. And you are certainly correct by stating that many schools resort to commercial parties to seek arrangements

with, just so their students can "engage in basic research they otherwise wouldn't have the chance to be a part of". I use

the word "resort", because I believe that if schools have the choice, they'd rather have the research done internally

(unless maybe if some sort of bounty is involved, but that is a whole other issue), because this gives them way more

control and is very good for their reputation as a research institute, which brings in funds again, etc. I guess there is

nothing wrong with some commercial involvement, but I find it very important to set strict limits to it.

</p>

<p>

Not to start a political flame-war here, but I come from the somewhat more socialistic side, and that is the exact reason

why I believe that companies should not be mangled into our educational system. I believe that the reason for schools to

approach commercial companies is solely because of the lack of funds to do this internally; if they would be able to

afford to do it internally, they certainly would. It's just a matter of lack of funds. And that is a matter of setting priorities,

and for me, education has one of the highest priorities.

</p>

<p>

There is no free lunch ... you might be right, I don't know. Call me an idealist, but I certainly want to believe this

statement is a selffulfilling prophecy.

</p>

[martijn_houtman]

<p><i>Translate something from English into, say, Dutch... and then back again.</i></p>

 

<p>

There are some films on Youtube that use this concept, they make up for some hilarious scenes :-)

</p>

[cooltpmd]

It seems almost analogous to the lottery ticket issue. I give my friend $1 to buy a ticket, he choses the location and timing of the purchase (certainly effects probability) ... the ticket wins ... who gets the money?

 

Like the photo, noone cares until money is involved. If I snapped a photo that somehow became worth $millions, it would cause me to pause.

[Ian Shalapata]

I've been popping in and out, reading the responses, even the bits about the Dutch schools. It seems that there's general agreement that the copyright would rest with the passer-by, however that it is unlikely that anyone in such a position would care about the copyright and any appearance of the photo were it published. As Craig pointed out

 

"The practical matter is that a casual passerby and a vacation photo simply doesn't have the visibility or the value to turn into a legal contest over who owns the copyright."

 

Revisiting the scenerio, as the photo is taken, a wacko takes the opportunity to slash the Mona Lisa before the security officer has a chance to react (forgetting for the moment that the plexiglass cover would prevent this), or choose your own catastrophe. This is captured in the background of the photo and bokeh doesn't enter into it. The anti has just been upped and I'm sure the passer-by now wants the credit, fame, and $'s associated with being the photographer.

 

I don't know if this would be enough to convince those who thought the copyright was with the owner of the camera. Do you still think that there may be a "shared" copyright?

 

And Matt: You're right, it is "copyright". I can't even say that was on purpose to lure people into the conversation. Just my goof. :)

[gordon_lukesh1]

Many of the famed French photg Bressai were actually taken by someone in his studio after he told them exactly what to take, usually sending them out in the rain!

[craig_gillette]

Well, unless the Mona Lisa is on tour to the US, French law would apply.